Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Blablaaa

Input welcome...
...in developing any of the RfC sections before it goes 'live' - particularly in adding anything important that I've overlooked, and in deciding what the desired outcome should be. EyeSerene talk 18:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Tirronan
I was asked to take a look at this article and my observations. My only contact with Blablaaa has been in the Battle of Jutland article. I found his behavior to be very aggressive pushing a singular point of view. Given the nature of that article it isn't out of the ordinary that someone will state their views. However this has gone on much too long and taken on aspects of a pov warrior type of behavior. When we didn't win that aspect of his argument he went on to an edit war on the outcome box with Parsecboy and myself reverting. Caden jumped in attempting to help him or is a sock puppet I know not which. My interactions with him have not been positive and I find his comments towards other editors that I know here to be offensive. In any case he has seemed to have reverted to charges of OR and threats of exposing me or any other of the editors that I've invited to share their views. Once again this is about the outcome and his insistence that only a German tactical victory will do. Well their is my outside view, he has managed in a very short time to convince me that he is a disruptive force here. However if he can't change his attitude of the POV warrior out to right all wrongs it is going to remain a tough proposition to work with him on these type of articles.--Tirronan (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * what he calls edit war was one edit by me. here look please tirrons edit, while i presented 90 sources ( thats what at the english wiki is called being a german bias fighter ) tirron did nothing other than saying he thinks iam incorrect. The battle of jutland is in every other wiki a german tactical victory only at the english wiki its not. While about 1000000 books say so. here my first contact with tirron:

i started with " so i found at least 15 books sying german tactical victory and no book glaiming british tactical victory. So i will change it soon." he replied with "And you will find us ready to revert it". How does this look ? For somebody the sources doesnt madder hes ready to defend his outcome. Guys please take a look at the discussion. Its allover the same people defend their outcomes and so on while ignoring sources. here the next reply of tirron after i explained that i have many sources : "Nothing is going to change the fact that the German fleet ran for its very life and NOTHING changed". Sounds like searching for consense, doesnt it? ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice little "inaccuracy" which you added to your text. While claiming that i persistent want a german tactical victory, you ignore that i already supported different compromises attempts by other user, while you and your friends persistent want your desired outcome while you never brought sources. You are simply sying the 90 sources suck and your explanation is this : "Nothing is going to change the fact that the German fleet ran for its very life and NOTHING changed". And yes you are doing OR. When you get presented sources which contradict something you start OR. please everyone look the jutland talkBlablaaa (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

General comments done before this started
Acclaimer: At the moment iam not willing in investing much time to refute all claims and clarify all issues. So for every neutral observer, please bear in mind that iam able to refute most ( all ? ) of them. I also want to remind that iam no nativ speaker. I noticed already that eloquence, sophistry and hairsplitting are all valuable skills in such a dispute. But iam not able to compete at the same level regarding eloquence. So its likly that my post look more dumb than they actually are :D. To keep this as clear as possible i will try to mark all bad/wrong arguments as Fallacy. In previous discussions i encountered so much Fallacy and ad hominem that iam afraid that people maybe overlook the real points and intention of peoples. Regarding ad hominem i want to remind all readers that iam also using this sometimes, but in general after i refuted the point of another user. The opposite is done by many other users. They engage arguments with ad hominem. Other points which maybe should be read before reading the texts of other users are Ignoratio elenchi Affirming the consequent ( this is pretty important regarding charnwood ), then this Straw man i will show that enigma and admin eyeseren used this multiple times. What i said often now is that i would appreciate a system which sanctions wrong claims or false accusations. This would apply for all. This would reduce the amount of accusaiotns by 90%. If somebody doenst plan to lie or something like this i guess nobody should be afraid of this. I dont want this to harm others ( i dont care so much... ) but i want to spare my time to refure so many wrong accusations. Blablaaa (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And by the way, the pretty simple reason for so much "trouble" caused by me is that most of edits deal with the bias of normandy articles, every minor tweak which is suggested by me is cause a overlong discussion because people hate when you show them their bias. Every issue, regardless if iam correct or not becomes a long dicussion because no one searches for consense anymore. I also want point out that all the problematic articles are the articles with british participation, the US articles are far less bias, the reason for this is clear and will be explained by me in some days. I also want to point out that most of the peoples, which now come here, had never direct contact of me, most of them are simply annoyed of the amount of discussion and would never tell their friends : "he hes right your edits are bias". in german i would say " ich habe in ein Wespennest gestochen und alle sind gallig jetzt" . I simply hit a weak spot of MILHIST. What are their options? i openly accuse them of being biased ( not all ), what should they do ? admiting that iam correct? no thats impossible. Thats the pretty simple explantion for this huge issue. My sometimes impolite writing style supports this then ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Before i write a "summary" i wanted to ask if it is possible to postpone this some days. Nearly all my disputes started with the same editor and my accusations against him, so i need time to clarify this isssue first. If this issue is clarified this here will look much clearer. To make your decision easier, i will not edit articles or their talk pages until this happened Blablaaa (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * iam still waiting for some kind of answer to my question ? and i wanted to say that i did not claim the word tactical sucess in the lead should be changed ^^ admin eyeseren knows this and says not the truth when he claims this . And iam pretty sure he cant find any diffs that show me claiming this is my intention :-) Blablaaa (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not, once the train has gotten going its rather hard to stop. :-) You know, everyone makes mistakes. If what you say is true, perhaps ES misremembered. There's no need to assume bad faith and immediately accuse him of lying. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Like i said multiple times the thing would become much more clearly if we wait until i presented my report regarding enigmas subtle bias. The fact that nobody wants to wait until this, though i said i would stop editing until this sounds like "nono lets push it before he brings informations which are maybe not cool"Blablaaa (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont like that admin eyeseren modifies his description after new "evidence" are presented. He did this now multiple times. But ich guess its not the sense that editors or me reveal discrepancies which become then "explained" in the description. Blablaaa (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blablaaa, I and other editors have already explained on my talk page, your talk page and on the milhist coords talk page that this is a draft RfC. I was working on it until late last night and didn't finish so I'm trying to wrap it up this morning. Rather than making your usual bad-faith assumptions about what's going on (like your comments about "tweak and trim" which I assume should have been directed to me, not Enigma), isn't it more sensible to assume that a normal process of drafting, redrafting and copyeditng is underway? EyeSerene talk 08:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

lol? this doesnt mean you can add something wrong and change it when it gets refused. People have to see your wrong claims. You not even apologized for wrong claimes. First you claimed i add german pov to articles, then i refuted this and you deleted it. Neutral editors have to see how often your "opinion" changes. I could understand if you strike these comments, but you simple deleted them after they got refuted. This is a valuable information for the neutral reader they then see that you claimed wrong thing more then one time. This will damage credibility and this quite rightlyBlablaaa (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Statement of the dispute
I saw now that eyeseren changed the description. After i showed that he could find no diif which proofs is false claim he changed the description ^^. Will this happen more and more until the description says " we dont like bla he has a problem with systematic bias" ? Sorry but when description gets always changed when i refute a point then good night... . The proper reaction would be striking the comments and saying " i was false bla didnt do that" but instead you choose to change it and call it "tweak and trim" ^^. In german i would say "Du schaufelst dein eigenens Grab. Und zwar deftig" does anyone know what the english proverb is?Blablaaa (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * i see that people can "endorse" statement by other peoples? So i think they "commit" to this statement? I mean what happend with the value of an editor who endorsed a summarize of an editor which becomes later totally refuted?Blablaaa (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by Jim Sweeney
can i refute jim sweenies words directly? this would be fine. where is the place for this? I also want to ask if there are sanctions for editors who falsly claim someting or who simply try to disort the situation? I guess it would be fine if editors who are chaught with disorting the situation are forbidden to respond again....Blablaaa (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you must refute in your own section. No, there are no sanctions in an RfC, but please provide diffs to back up your currently unfounded assertions. Thanks, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If there would be sanctions for claiming wrong things like sweeny did, or labeling correct edits as "deleting of sourced material" like sweeny did then, i guess, the list of accusations would be 95% shorter. Thats why i would appreciate if people who throw wrong accusations around and misinterpret correct edits, get "punished" with some short "block" or something like this, this would immediatly minimize false claimes and thereby shortening the entire issue. I think its kinda tactic to make as much claims as possible in the hope that the claims ( without beein correct ) themself damage the reputation.Blablaaa (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The links are there for all to see. You could have started by explaining the edits, but from above you appear to want to sanction me for a false claim I have made ? It does seem from those edits that you are unprepared to accept any sources but your own approved ones. Not being able to read Russian I don't know if the refs given are reliable but I think this is another example of your behaviour.  --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but yes i want "sanctions" for you. Your behaviour shows you dont want to resolve dispute. You presented 4 diffs as bad edits by me. NONE of them is a bad edit. If you hoped that nobody will check it or whatever remains unknown for me. But i see what will happen here multiple uses will join and present false claims like you did. And if it would be clear that false claims would bring light "sanctions" then people would think twice before they present wrong accusations like you did. I dont have the time to refute all diff presented by you or other users thats why i would appreciate if people get sanctions when they show bad faith. They same should apply for myself too!! I ask you, you still think this edits are bad edits? Blablaaa (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Examine the edits
 * Deleted content with comment battle ended early 42 and not April but there is a cite for casualties to April and there appears to be no attempt at discussion.
 * Deleted content with comment del unapt sources Why were they inappropriate I think you mean. Here there was and still is a discussion of the talk page that has not been resolved.
 * Deleted content with the comment sounds better now what was deleted seems to show that the total losses excludes accidents and aircraft losses due to anti air and could be interpreted as all losses were in air to air combat and may be POV pushing.
 * Deleted content with IGOR i cant count how much i reverted you without giving warnings. please unterstand it doesnt care if you think 1500000 are correct not an ideal way to attempt to reach a consensus. -Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * i have to explain why i delete a source which adds 3 months casualties which have nothing to do with this battle? ^^. maybe you try to add something like this to one of enigmas articles, you would get a "reverted vandalism" within 5 minutes. i not even called in vanadilms. Please admit thats its wrong and strike it finally.
 * I dont have to explain in the edit summary why they are inapt this was discussed at the board for reliable sources. THis was also discussed multiple times and other talks. the same reverts were done by Hohum. Many over editors had marked it as vandalism i did not ^^
 * read the dicussion another user said it sounds bad to imply that this are only aerial losses and i tweaked it to satisfy HIM
 * lol please read the discussion and battle of kursk. I gave igor no warning i didnt report him, i did nothing what have be done by normandy editors within one day. I remained so cool and explained it him over and over.
 * summarize: you have still 4 pretty good edits and your are not willing to admit that it was a simply failure of you to post them here ^^Blablaaa (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets make it clear. After examining my edits would you, jim sweeny, still say this edits are suspicious? If yes, i will deal with it later. If no, then nevermind!
 * No reply as to be expected. Jim sweeny did a simple hastly try to throw some mud of me, all of his diffs finally showed up as normal correct edits which were done before i another well regarded user. Sorry but cant take people serious who come here and take the first 4 edits of me which removed something and use them to claim iam bad.... Blablaaa (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by The Ed
i dont call editors from milhist "uninvolved". The only uninvolved editors in the last issue were the guys from the neutral point of view boards. And both supported me. And they advice enigma to quote sources exactly. Did you miss that or simply ignored? Please get your facts right. But you are also a good example for the entire problem. I see no value in this RFC until i reported my case regarding enigma. If this is judged all the comments like "he accused enigma" look totally different. You also turned my words around and thereby you cherrypicked. I said i think its bad to include other editors which helped me because it would damaged their reputation when this here turns against me. So they finally get "punished" due to damaged reputation. Nice case of turning words around and selectiv editing. thumbs upBlablaaa (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I'm still waiting for Blablaaa to provide diffs to back up his accusations. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * which especially? Blablaaa (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * and btw iam still awaiting an apologyse because you ( deliberatly ?`) misinterpreted my post hereBlablaaa (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've discussed this at length on his talk page, and I think this has been resolved(?) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by Dapi
not worth a read. I will do a quick respond because this case is pretty easy. Dapi described his first encounter with me with this words: "Bla’s insistence that Kursk was a German tactical victory". Yes hm ^^ thats a blatant lie. Never claimed something like this. I await a diff for that. I will show you what the point was. Here my edit which brought dapi in rage:[] i added Friesers opinion about the reasons for german failure. Until this there was no german point of view in the article. What i edited is exactly what Frieser said^^. Dapi responded with adding multiple tags which say this was weird and blablabla. Here dapis response [], he "seriously disputes" what frieser said about tactical superiority. His mission started. But now hm there is a big problem; no sane historian with good reputation would claim that the germans at 43 were not tactical superior^^. So dapi had a problem. He then chooses to use David Glantz to explain the skill of soviet forces while holding down my edits on "reasons of failure of zitadelle". Yes David M. Glantz. The problem with Glantz is, that he never ever would claim soviets were not inferior. Another problem evolved for dapi after he faked glantz, i own the most recent book of Glantz and when he talks about the enourmous losses of Red Army he explains that the losses were so high because the german unts were still the superior tactical combat force ^^. He used Glantz to claim the opposite of what he actually said. Then he used Glantz to claim superiorty wasnt significant while glantz summarized the battle of kursk with "Red Army was rapidly developing the skills to match its enormous numbers. The resulting combination proved fatal to blitzkrieg and, ultimately, lethal to Germany"^^. What did Dapi next? He wrote a little text about prokhorovka to "illustrate" that german tankunits werent superior and soviet tanks were "better" ( :-) ). He [|used] Glantz again to explain that german lost 320 tanks and soviets only 400 while force ratio was near even ( also see this important diff [], glantz doesnt claim this, and dapis knew this). This is actually the prokhorvka mythos . But again i own the book of glantz which does not claim anything of this. Now dapi became less carefull and did a [|edit] where he used what glantz really said. This diff totally condraticts what dapi edited at kursk/prokhorovka ^^. So, but whats about Frieser? Why does dapi get in rage when i copy what Frieser said. Does he think frieser is unreliable? NO!!! He loves Frieser he used his well regarded book "blitzkrieg legend" to revert all people who try to edit Blitzkrieg. He loves this book he says this is the one book about blitzkrieg. But what is Blitzkrieg? If frieser is so brilliant in his assement about mobilewarfare he must be able to judge if german forces at kursk were tactical superior. And yes he is, he goes also conform with glantz the expert for Kursk. This is also supported by dapi. So dapi contradicts what 2 historians said, which he actually likes. One of this historians is totally faked to support his weird POV which is support by no serious historian. I brought this points before in private conversations, he ignored^^. To summarize the situation: dapi got in rage when he read what frieser said ( while its totally irrelevant if he does not like it. btw...), started a campaing to dispute this, facted sources while doing this. And now he claims here ""Bla’s insistence that Kursk was a German tactical victory". Thats why i asked for punishment for blatant lies. I invested 30 minutes now to refute his baseless accusations. IF there would be some kind of force to be honest this would have not happended. Blablaaa (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * and by the way dapi owns also friesers books and claimed multiple times i fake sources ( before he had the book ). I always asked for proofs, same like here at normandy. No proofs came. While i even scaned textpages to show that he fakes sources ^^ But hm . There comes a memory back.*rataplan* It was ADMIN NICK who said everything is fine. huh totally forget this. This is awesome i will start digging out the diffs. Blablaaa (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * more interesting stuff ( this was written after dapi responed already) : Here is a scan what glantz says about the battle of Bogudokhov. [], this is the scan for the notes []. Frieser makes easier and says this "both tank armies had lost more than 800 tanks out of their 1,112". And here how dapi described this engagement on the article battle of kursk : "On 11 August, the 1st Tank Army engaged Waffen SS units near Bogodukhov....The 5th Guards Army sent reinforcements, and between 13 and 17 August the Germans were fought to a stalemate. For the first time a major German counter offensive had failed to destroy a Soviet exploitation force"( i added big letters). So does bias work . Glantz says the lost 800 tanks and their offensive power was destroyed but dapi quotes glantz with saying germans were fought to a stalemate and failed ^^ . Lets go, explain this dapi . Blablaaa (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

3. Glantz and House report that Soviet losses were 400/800. German losses = 320 and SPGs Glantz Titans Clash p. 167. + Soviet technical art comment see p. 176 same book. Glantz clearly says that the Germans failed to breakthrough into the Strategic depths, as per p. 167 as mentioned in his link

4. Glantz & House When Titians clash; p. 163:.....this increased [reserves that is] Soviet superiority in the Kursk region to 3:1 in manpower and 1.5:1 in armour.... on p. 165; his table gives an overall ratio of 1:1 in tanks.

I'd like an apology now. Dapi89 (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * you have the new version of this book. you choose to use the old wrong version. the diff shows you own the new book. Go ahead explain us why you choose the old debunked version. Please iam very interestedBlablaaa (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glantz older books which deal with the entire eastern front use old data, in his new book Battle of Kursk, he uses the correct numbers. You proofed you own this book, explain why you used the old crappy version which supports you. Dapi there is no way out of this...Blablaaa (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My judgement is clear. you used the old version "when titans clash", which was written long before, to describe the battle of kursk. While you own the book of glantz which is newer and actualy only about Kursk. You only used this book to give german tank losses because you searched for old stuff to support your POV ( which in my opinion is utter bollocks and supported by nobody after soviet archives were opended)Blablaaa (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Bla', that is a pathetic response to such a strong accusation. They are both the same. I have ISBN 1 84158 049 X (1995) and ISBN 978-070060899-7 (TWO copies of Titans Clash, as well as Glantz' Kursk book (1999). It is YOU who are failing to worm his way out of this. You're trying to confuse the issue so the point gets lost. Why can't you admitt a mistake? Dapi89 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * lol what are you talking about now? explain me why you used glantz old book while you have his new book about kursk which clearly contradicts you. Answer please, simply answer. If your edits were fine then simply answerBlablaaa (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * first it was kinda funny but now it becomes weird. Whats your point dapi. Glantz wrote a book about kursk, which partly was based on propaganda stuff, he then rewrote his book without this propaganda stuff. You own both books. And after you got rage regarding the tactical superiorty of german you started to put the propaganda numbers in the article with citing Glantz old book while you ahve his new on :D the diffs are above. Explain please why you editing 320 german tank losses in the articles and then edited the 60-70 tank losses, and sourced both with Glantz ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Before people get confused now. You have to look diff 3 which is the version which should support dapis view, and then diff 5 which is the recent version. Both cited by glantz :-) Blablaaa (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Iam well aware what will happen next, dapi will quote some passages out of some book, many stuff which has nothing to do with this. Please look the diffs and watch if he really explains somethingBlablaaa (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * finally i regret my heavy response. While iam correct and dapis statement about kursk is wrong, it sucks what i had to say. Dapis edits were done in rage, can understand this. I intially also planed to not respond to the kursk issue but eyeseren called in dapi. Normally i dont damage other editors. Never went to aniboards when i was insulted or something like this... Blablaaa (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by Enigma
Oh man not enough time so much wrong things. A fast reply to enigmas attempted to gives examples of my bias. I did not look any diffs i will explain it out of my mind. I tried to insert allied tank losses to the box which were sourced in the article, he reverted it ( with " revert vandalism " ) i started argueing all reliabel historians should be included when the vary the complete "range" should be included. Annother user explained this to me some weeks ago. Enigma now argued this are german claims and so on. I replied doesnt madder if a historian says 100 tanks. Maybe he thinks this claims are correct, i dont know the book... : i then went to NICK ( who blocked me multiple times ) somebody of you ever thought about the fact that i always went to nick, despite the fact he blocked me? It was kinda "showing good faith". Finally nick explained me that this book is a collection of german wartime data. I also dont like including wartime claims ( enigma likes it, but only when it are allied claims, so we have sometimes claims which exceed german losses in the box as "range" ). Enigma gave you the diff of nick, but he didnt gave mine. After i saw this was uncommented primary data i replied with "ok". Looks different now, doesnt it? If this was the try to show my bias editing then ... :-) Blablaaa (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your response that I use wartime claims i.e. “I also dont like including wartime claims ( enigma likes it, but only when it are allied claims, so we have sometimes claims which exceed german losses in the box as "range"” appears to be in reference to Battle of Villers-Bocage (diff included in my comments on the main page) and Operation Goodwood only further reinforces my point that you dispute sources that present a different opinion to the one you have.


 * In regards to the former article, this has been explained to you on the talk page a number of times: the highest figures come from two sources – one notes they were all knocked out while the second notes it was a mixture of both knocked and destroyed neither present any further information making further commentary nothing but speculation. The other figure, presented by Taylor and slightly lower, provides the British claims but is accompanied by information that states the picture is not straight forward, that German records are not complete and they omit the tanks damaged; additional information that really should be added back into the article to reinforce the note, his opinion and paint a more complete picture.
 * The latter article presents both sides of the coin: German records and British opinion that the losses were around 75 tanks with the opinion that higher rates are an exaggeration coupled with respectable historian Simion Trew’s opinion that German tank losses amounted to “perhaps 100 tanks”; a position further reinforced by post war history that claims upwards of 100 tanks were destroyed.
 * Finally your assertion that it was Nick-D who first informed you that the book was a collection of wartime reports and hence you dropping the issue because you do not like to use wartime sources, is a clear lie per the following: the edit summary as to why i removed the information (from the infobox only, not the article) in the first place, your initial post on my talkpage were you acknowledge A) you did not even look at the source and B) you note that he is using a primary source:” Wood is a respected historian, he has the experience and credentials to know when to trust primary sources.” and finally my reply on your talkpage were i specifically state Woods had reproduced an entire German intel report . Later on you even admit that it was a German intel report being quoted . Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * thats what you call a clear lie? when i call something a clear lie then it is a clear lie. You said it is a german report, which was not disputed by me but until the historian dont says he dont believes this numbers they come to the article. I finally dropped the issue when nicked said this is a collecton of uncommented primary data!!! So no lie from my side. And btw you will have problem to find lies by me. I already presented 15 ( ? ) of various editors. I said if a reliable source publishes these numbers they need to be mentioned. And btw i was correct and your assertion that other sources say 80 so the other figure dont comes to the articles is a clear violation of wiki rules. Finally the fact that this book was only a collection of primary data made your point more correct. Regarding villers bocage the higher figure for knocked out is nothing else then the wartime claims of british soldiers.... Same like at charnwood the german claims only difference: They are in the box.... ( have to admit i didnt look the article now so maybe iam wrong ) Blablaaa (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Still my presentation showas that your presentation of my attempted to bias an article was wrong. I wanted to include all reliable historians and dropped the issue immediatly after i got a reasonable explanation to not do this Blablaaa (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the damaged tanks, dont even know what you want? the article gives no german damaged tanks. This is your example for my biased editing? i added allied damaged tanks while german damaged tanks were not available?^^Blablaaa (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding goodwood you removed a statemen about 60 allied tanks lost and replaced it with something without numbers. After i asked you added a new text, now you claim you planed this anyways^^. My failure was that i didnt waited a bit longer :-) Blablaaa (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a random comment: if you really had not read Woods book (or had the passages available I mean), Blablaaa, then you really shouldn't be adding it to an article... II  | (t - c) 20:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * it was in the article already i copy pasted it to the infobox. if this is against the rules i apologizeBlablaaa (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Balblaaa, you of course saw my edit here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, i saw it. And ? it is possible that your intentions were other than i interpret. I cant proove it so nevermind...Blablaaa (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by Chaosdruid
Superfast respond. I didnt read your text in full. Sorry but all what you is copy pasting primary data, you explained me that iam incorrect because some SS officers said " we had big losses ". And so on. All you do is OR and SYN at charnwood i asked you, feeled 25 times, to simply give me a quote which supports your desired outcome, you totally failed to do this, You even copied primary data of montgomerys orders. I told you over and over again that you do OR. My "accusations" regarding you are correct. You followed me and told every editor which talks with me that i insulted you and that iam incivil. In my opinion you slightly harrased me. You also claimed that i want charnwood a tactical german victory, or whatever i never claimed something like this If you really look iam the only one who never said that he wants this or that outcome i said use sources for your outcome. I said please use sources correct and do no SYN, and i repeated this over and over again. You explained me then that we have to talk about the orders for charnwood to determine the outcome. lol ? that is the definition of OR/SYN. To be honest i dont think your intentions are bad at all. In opposite to many others you dont try do "fight" against me so its ok. I think your/our problem is that you sometimes miss the point and then dont try do find him. You misinterpret my points and got pissed when i told you that in a incivil manner. I unterstand this. So here iam the one who is the bad. You joined the discussion when i was totally pissed. My apologize, but considere rereading my posts and what i actually said. Blablaaa (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Addition. I believe you that you try to reach consense but from my point of view its a bit different. ´Please understand this now not wrong i dont now how to say this kindly. For me your consensesearch were useless posts without value, during the entire discussion i see you miss the point, how can i reach consense with you ? I cant... . Maybe next time i should appreciate your attempts but nevertheless i cant reach consense with somebody who misses the point so hard, sorry .Blablaaa (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will provide no diffs to support my accusations which were made previously. Not because why iam not able but because i see no value in listing your "failures". See this as sign of good faith as response to yours. Blablaaa (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

after reading your conclusion text ( still didnt read the middle part ) i think i now have to respond :-(
 * 1) you : "If the mission did make it's goals it was a success; if it did not then it was not a success." men you dont decide this, is this so hard to understand? you dont decide what there goals are ( you try you post primary date for it ) nor do you decide if they succeded. And finally you dont decide if this was a tactical victory.
 * 2) you :"and was used by blaaa to discount any other sources and support his POV of "partial success" ", thats a lie never claimed something like this. Show diff please or strike. that why i called you liar chaosdruid.
 * you:"Blaaa makes it clear that he does not care to accept this." yes thats a lie too, i guess i have to quote myself. 1) "if you have sources to cite a tactical allied victory then do it. Nobody stops you. Until the source says it was a tactical victory, everything is fine" 2)"So which quote would you take for the citiation ?" 3)"I dont wanna do OR. Add what the sources say" 4 ) "but like i said many times by me, stick to the sources and add the outcome which is support by the historians" 5) "I asked you about 5 times for a quote out of a secondary source which you intend to use for citing the outcome. Which did you choose" 6) "its totally irrelevant if you do research regarding the orders. you need historians to cite the outcome" 7)"Chaosdruid, everything what we need is one or two or three historians which we can quote for the outcome" . That is what you said "blaa makes clear that he does not care to accept this". please everyone read charnwood talk the last 2 sections....  . And chaosdruid consider striking your comments or updating themBlablaaa (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * regarding the claim that i falsly said you do OR. please everyone read the last 2 sections of charnwood talk. i liked this one by chaosdruid: "There is your conclusion, by the Allied Supreme Commander Blaaa - I am sure that now you can see that you are indeed wrong, it was a tactical success" beside the heavy OR/SYN he not even noticed that i dont care which outcome comes to the box when it is cited properly ^^ ( see my quotes above or talk )Blablaaa (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess my final reply: Chaosdruid you are the most heavy orginal researcher who i ever met at wiki. And i dont mean this i a bad way, i think your attentions are good but ..... . You want to find reasonable explanations and so on but nobody cares how you interpret primary accounts. This is maybe even interessting but when you start to take this as base to write an outcome to a featured article then *facepalm*. Iam also concerned, and i think this is one of problem here, that no other editor did say this to you so long you are "researching" against me. I hope finally, somebody talks with you. And points your enthusiasm into correct direction. Blablaaa (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Response

I hope that you can see why I stand by my comments. I am glad that you have realised my intention was to achieve consensus. It is my hope that you will also realise that many of the things you are discussing were on article talk pages and not in the articles themselves. Until now I have left it up to consensus to decide which should or should not be included.

I have already stated (on the neutrality board) that the treatment you received from some parties may have been a little harsh and that you gave as good as you got.

Your points about primary and secondary sources are not quite correct. Researching a subject is not "primary research" otherwise you yourself are guilty of it. Due to your concentration on what you think is a concerted effort against you you have failed to realise that in some points I was supporting you and in others merely trying to support the article itself. There was one particular point which you were not aware of - No_original_research/Noticeboard - which maybe shows you that I am indeed very wary of using possibly primary sources. In particular that source is not really going to be primary as he was not involved in the battle himself and did not give orders directly as I believe Montgomery was in charge until some weeks later.

I will address your points in order.

Superfast response
 * See your comments about "I am doing research" and then look at your comments accusing me of OR when I say the same thing.
 * I have no desired outcome apart from the facts and ensuring NPOV.
 * The orders from Montgomery - I am not sure about that as the orders would have been from Crocker - the quote I used which you say was primary was not - it was from written by Stacey and uses "Maj.-Gen. L.C. Manners-Smith, "The Battle of Caen", Royal Artillery Commemoration Book 1939-1945, 365. 1st British Corps Operation Order No. 3" as his reference.
 * You did insult me several times.
 * Original orders - It would not be against policy to include a copy/quote of the original orders
 * Looking at the orders and putting them in the article is not SYN, finding them to put in the article is not OR. The problem is that you do not apppreciate I am neutral. If the orders say "get Caen and all of Bourgebous" I would argue that the article be changed just as much as if they say "Just get up to the river". The article must reflect the material and sources.

addition
 * I understand that - I think you missed the point which was that I was trying to show you that there were other sources which backed up the statement and would mean that the statement did not rely solely on the one Enigma had used.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history You say these were "useless posts without value" yet one was from the Ministry of Defence and one from a book published by Hubert Meyer.
 * The reason I could not comment on any possible SYN by Enigma was that I did not have the source he used so I could not check it
 * I thank you for realising my intentions were for consensus.

after reading
 * 1 The point is not that I wish to include anything like that in the article, we are discussing it on a talk page, but that if the reader is shown the original orders and reads the position of the Allied forces at the end of the operation they can be left to make their own minds up.
 * 2 You discounted the sources I quoted as "useless posts..." (as above) which supported that the mission was a success or victory (neither say partial) and have reduced the article from "Allied tactical victory" to "Allied partial success"
 * 3 I have never stated that I was going to use a source to claim "Tactical victory" in the article. I stated it was a victory and that it was a success. I also said that it depended on the original orders as if they were not met then that would support your points.

regarding the claim
 * If you are truthfully stating your desires "I do not care what the outcome is" then you really should not care about it saying "Allied victory" or "Allied success" - the fact that you made the outcome read "partial" is in fact aginst your statement.

I guess my final reply Chaosdruid (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You accuse me of being a "heavy original researcher". Once again you try to say that I am using OR in an article which I certainly have never done, do not condone and would likly revert it myself if I saw it. I have never tried to interpret an original account and I am certainly not researching against you and I feel that what appears to be paranoia on your behalf is merely the result of the long standing discussions and your inability to see that I am neutral in all of this. If the evidence, primary or otherwise, supported your view I would be "on your side" but as I am finding more to support the opposing view you think I am "against you".
 * you:


 * argh that happens when no one wants to admit he is wrong. my last reply to you my points are clear and simple and true. some quotes of you

Blablaaa (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * you: " think you missed the point which was that I was trying to show you that there were other sources which backed up the statement" THEN QUOTE THEM!!!
 * you: " You discounted the sources I quoted as "useless posts..." " i call your post of primary data useless and indeed it is and this talk page.
 * you: " it saying "Allied victory" or "Allied success"" where did i claim this ? lol thats the same, would never claim this
 * you: " the fact that you made the outcome read "partial" is in fact aginst your statement." no because i made what neutral editors suggested!!!!


 * Comments like the one you made in response to SenorFreebie show that you fail to understand that you are indeed biased towards your own research. Time and time again you accuse me of OR when I am simply researching and posting quotes - here we have you saying "problem is that my research is a bit better then yours to Freebie - are you doing OR here ?. It is time for you to accept that my research is not OR and is simply research, which is neither better nor worse than yours. As you have called all my research OR I would prefer it if you struck your comments of OR now. If you do not that is your choice to make.Chaosdruid (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * iam not biased towards my research i simply knew what he reasearched and i knew that this was oversimplified simply because i have a bigger knowledge regarding this topic thats all and what you fail to understand is that i already added 5 sources to the box and he tried to discredit this and i used OR to show him that his concerns are not correct. You do OR to affect the articles. When there was no source for tactical success you came and said "look here kurt meyer said this" to support the outcome which was unsourced so you did simple OR. Please try to understand this. I will not struck my comments regarding your OR because you did it please look above. Maybe you considere to read WP:OR again.  Blablaaa (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Where you are going wrong Blaaa is here:-
 * "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources."
 * All the posts I have made are from these sources - therefore no OR
 * "It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources."
 * I have not made any analysis or synthesis to advance a position not advanced by the already used, and newly found by me, sources. I have merely tried to show you that there are other sources which back up the already inserted text and put text into synopsis form so that you can perhaps better understand what they are saying as English is not your first language. We have already had the discussion about the difference between American "80 plus some" and the British "some 80 (or so)". I hope that you can now see that your are perhaps taking this OR thing a little too far.
 * I do not want to make our already "sort of acceptable" terms of peace turn back into another set of legnthy argumentative accusatory posts :¬)
 * I have not done any OR Chaosdruid (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

my final reply: the box had an outcome cited which was not directly supported by the sources. Thus uncited. You brought then quotes of participants to explain its ok. thats the very definition of OR while the outcome was unsourced you supported tactical victory with primary data.. This was my final reply to you. Please read charnwood talk again you will see it then. Blablaaa (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And mine - It is not OR to bring other sources to back up statements - it is the very essence of balanced NPOV as shown is this little video . I did not support tactical victory with these sources but supported "success" and the second part of the statement that one of the goals of the operation, after capturing parts of Caen, was "attrition of the German forces" which is exactly what those sources supported. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * fine. this is not what you did you supported tactical victory which was not supported with any source, if i would have not gone to the neutral POV board the outcome would have stayed because you copy pasted primary data. here i quote you what you told me after you copy a report by "dont know" : "There is your conclusion, by the Allied Supreme Commander Blaaa - I am sure that now you can see that you are indeed wrong" . so i said the source are misinterpreted and you responded with OR to show me its ok !!!PLEASE!!! understand this finally. and instead asking me for striing correct comments should you struck your comments which were prooven wrong already like "blabla persistent want his outcome" which was hardly refuted by me Blablaaa (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * here chaos, one qoute of you : "I suspect that you have exhausted all possible forum shopping and if consensus and fact go against you this time you will have to drop the matter and accept the outcome."  this was before i was supported by neutral editors? you presented me mass of primary data and told me i should drop the stick because you showed me iam wrong? because the "facts" are against. Is this enough now, do you finally stop argueing against and understand that is your fault? Blablaaa (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for "final reply" ? Ah well - I am sure that you will never admit you were wrong but the facts are there - you keep calling it "primary data" when they were sources from five published books and one published report - that is not primary data, it is secondary sources. WE can keep going round in circles but I cannot be bothered if you cannot see how wrong you are - if you continue to keep these accusations of OR and lying then so be it. The choice, as ever, is yours. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope this doesnt sounds to harsh but its over now look here : your first comment at the neutral board where you butted in after 2 neutral editors supported me : "The Allied Supreme Commander said that the battle at Caen was a tactical success and a strategic one.". serious chaosdruid. you now see that you did OR. you came to the boards and said the unsource tactical victory should stay because you think Blablaaa (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is now blaa - the Battle for Caen is not Charnwood - get your facts right...More importantly it was a quote from a secondary source and not OR - I did not "butt in" - I am a neutral editor who was giving an opinion. I was not involved in edits on the Charnwood page and was trying to mediate to achieve NPOV factual consensus. After the NPOV noticeboard had made their comments I brought more facts to the page to show that there was more to the whole thing than just that which had been presented up to that point. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

lol you came to the board and claimed this quote about cean was enough to justify a tactical victory at charnwood. Sorry speechless.... . You also totally failed to understand that the board did not decide what the outcome was it decided that the sources were not good for citing the outcome you tried to defend this with a statement about cean. men you are heavly doing OR Blablaaa (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * you tell me i should get my facts right after you presented a quote about cean to support your desired outcome at charnwood *facepalm*
 * From the neutral point of view board by me "I have tried once more to help show him why the facts support what the article, as it stands now, is saying." - no mention of the info box - I have always talked about the article. Stop trying to insinuate, by using SYN, what I have said blaaa - you have decided I have a desired outcome of "tactical victory" and that is simply not true. I merely want to find out the truth as to whether the outcome met it's operational objectives and to do that we have to know what those objectives were. If you concentrated on finding that out then you would truly be in a neutral poosition as am I.
 * As for your facepalm -- do it a bit harder plz :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

btw the quote of yourself is OR you dont decide which facts support what. nobody cares what you / we think about facts. Blablaaa (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "facts" in the quote are the facts of the discussion & dispute and the sources used, not the facts that the sources discussed - perhaps you did not realise this at the time. I will quote the whole sentence:-
 * . "I also asked that the section he is disputing be tweaked and was infact supporting him...and I have tried once more to help show him why the facts support what the article, as it stands now, is saying"
 * At the end of the day the fact is that you need to accept that shouting "OR" and "SYN" all the time to try and invalidate other peoples evidence and sources is not the way to achieve an outcome. Consensus is the way forwards and multiple sources provided by me have been claimed as OR and SYN and discounted offhand by you. It is apparent that the sources and refs are indeed secondary and there is weight of sources that claim the operation was a success. As yet I am not conviced though - I will need to see sources quoting the orders and objectives, or the originals from archives, to be convinced that those objectives were or were not met. If those sources are found and placed in the article then, as you say you do not care whether it says success or not, you will obviously have no objection to them being used ? Chaosdruid (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * you can find about 20 posts of me saying " put in what you can cite" so no. But obviously the outcome is not as clear as you and enigma assumed, still you have no source claiming what you want to cite. Maybe partial success is ok because indeed is was partial. No bridgehead established. So i think you will have problem to find a reliable hsitorian claiming what you want to cite. but iam no expert for normandy so iam interessted what you finally find. Can i ask a question ? you always claim you have many sources which give tacical success/victory, can you give me a quote of a reliable secondary source? Blablaaa (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How many times must I say this blaa before you stop ? for the three hundred and sixty fifth time - I DO NOT CLAIM TACTICAL ANYTHING
 * As for your bridgehead claim you obviously do not understand what one is - from the free dictionary:
 * 1.a. A fortified position from which troops defend the end of a bridge nearest the enemy.
 * 1.b. A forward position seized by advancing troops in enemy territory as a foothold for further advance.
 * 2. The area immediately adjacent to the end of a bridge.
 * From merriam webster:
 * 1 a : a fortification protecting the end of a bridge nearest an enemy b : an area around the end of a bridge
 * 2 : an advanced position seized in hostile territory
 * Seeing as how they captured the North side of the river and the bridges on that side you are mistaken. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ok so you again do OR i give you that "no bridgeheads established across the river." cited by Ellis. You understand the different now? nobody cares what you think about the bridgehead chaos, please cease doing OR to support your POV which is not support by any reliable secondary source until now. You give more and more example for OR so i assume now that you simple dont understand it. Best regards Blablaaa (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your claims of OR and POV and any other crap you come out with are beyond reproach. Stop it - you are beginning to be a bore. Just because you do not understand plain english does not make you right.
 * Not establishing a bridgehead across the river does not mean that a bridgehead was not established - the source you are using is correct that they did not capture both sides of the river. A bridgehead on one side will of course not be "across the river" if they had both sides then it would be "across the river". Are you disputing that they captured the north sides of the bridges ? are you disputing that the north of the town was not used as a bridgehead to launch the next attack? Are you saying that they did not capture all the areas to the north side of the river ?
 * You are mistaken, you do not like it and you are insulting me again with claims of OR and POV - so nothing new there. Once again the facts are clear. They captured the bridgeheads on the North side of the river, they established a bridgehead for the next attacks and there are multiple sources which back up what I am saying. Nothing you say or do can dispute this.
 * Drop the stick and step away from the horse Chaosdruid (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

you totally failed sorry but never saw somebody who is so wrong and has so problem to understand this. you with your unimportant annoying POV claimed bridgeheads were established. i bring a source which dispute this and you start a rant? are you serious? where is your problem chaos your are the editor who totally fails to proove his points and who totally failed to accept sources which are presented to him. you claimed it was a tactical victory but you have no source for it. you claim bridgeheads were established but source say other, chaos sorry i have to quit the conversation i get rage. you totally failed. i presented you a source which contradicts directly and undisputable your postion and you tell iam wrong i question your social skills at the moment. if you would search for improvement you would stop disputing the obivous... . lol how you claim multiple sources support you but again you bring none. hilarious...Blablaaa (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC) unbelievable how you dispute what even the article tells your here from the lead "Discovering Caen's remaining bridges to be defended or impassable and with German reserves positioned to oppose their crossing, I Corps closed down the operation." . you also show the lack of understanding of what you try to talk. you say they had bridgehead north of the river. huh? they were north of the river you not even understood what a bridgehead is Blablaaa (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * i guess i will move away from wiki. i see no possible to work with people who lack the minimum understand of warfare especially if i have to achieve consensus with such editors. Its time for wiki to get some rules regading "experts". Experts are needed to deal with military articles. I will stop editing i will maybe come back to search for a committe regarding bias. Iam not willing to ask for permission of amateurs who not even understand what they talk about. Iam against allied bias so every edit by me will be discussed and if i have to do such discussion like this one here i get mad. Such amount of bad OR together with missing the point . Blablaaa (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * he seriously believes that you have to get bridgeheads on your site of the river -.- Blablaaa (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by Tomstar
Blablaaa (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) tomstar: "Discussions with Blablaaa have gone no where", if you look charnwood talk you see that maybe discussion go nowhere because nobody wants to listen.
 * 2) tomstar: "Efforts to block Blablaaa have been unsuccessful; his blocks expire leaving him none-the-wiser as to why he was blocked" if this would be correct you would see me blocked for calling people idiots and so on. Why is there no block for me? Maybe my edits simply justify no blocks at the moment.
 * 3) tomstar: "The root of the problem with Blablaaa is the German based pov-ish spin he tends to incorporate on the articles he edits" Hm yes. NO, give diffs for this claim i asked you [|here] to give diffs. Instead of ignoring my request you could simply say that you over hastly assumed that i must be the guy with the bias when there is so much trouble with me. Iam also interessted how you as commander will handle allied bias when he finally got presented. Im simply not putting german bias at articles, thats not true not at normandy and not at eastern front. When i add content i in contrast to other editors, stick as close to the source as possible. I have never done any kind of SYN or OR in articles. And to be honest i guess that nearly all editors which are involved here had put more bias into articles than me. I zero, so.....

On point 1, I'll concede that the Charnwood discussion was in fact a point to your credit, that you would be able to find and bring a problem of that nature to our attention is the reason why I have taken a position of probation rather than a position of blocking/banning you outright. If you can locate a problem like that then you have the potential to do great things, its just getting you to bend a little more with regards to your edits that I think obstructs you from contributing to the project in such a way that others would help you. I sense WP:OWN issues here, but I have not raised that point because I am still looking for further evidence of WP:OWN before I make any accusations of that nature here. To be fair, we owe you that much right now; you're in enough trouble as is.

On point 2, I am not referring to any current block you have, merely noting that your block log (which you can view with the external link I provided) is liberally sprinkled with previous blocks put in place for either personal attacks or for disruptive editing. Of this there can be no denial from you camp, anyone with a basic command of English can read the comments here, although I grant that differences in the opinions of editors may result different interpretations of the edits the idea of the edits is what is being presented here. As for the block at the moment; we have no reason to block you at the moment, and to be fair I wold protest against any move to block you right now since you are as much a part of this process as the rest of us; if we can not even allow you to edit here in your own defense than the system would fail in all respects.

On point 3, my samples would be the same as any others provided. I concur with the community that these samples provided demonstrate a German bias. Having said that, I note that I find no puritans on the encyclopedia with regard to bias; it all tends to slant toward a pro-US position anyway, and if I had nickle for every time our members had a bias argument/debate/war with someone (ANY one) we would be able to retire millionaires. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont find any diff which shows my POV. Finally the proof for my bias is that i included damaged tanks in the box ^^ . i think its time to reconsider this bias issueBlablaaa (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re minorhistorian
yes if somebody wants to misunderstand me then he will misunderstandt me when i say to somebody that i can easyl refute his comments but will thereby damage his reputation ( neccessarily ) and i give him the possiblity to strike is false claims then this is interpreted as bad faith. Such straight blatant misinterpretation sucks. Why should i go to dapi before i easly refute comments of him ? why should i do this? explain to me. I warned three times that i intent to refute him what becomes unpleasent for him and this is bad faith for you ???????? *facepalm* Blablaaa (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) you "Since when do the phrases "i thought you will not respond because your source faking of glantz. I intially planned to not to respond to kursk because i wanted not to damage you reputation but now the case looks different." provide room for misunderstanding? The implications of bad faith on Dapi89's part, and a threat to damage another editor's reputation is clear enough and needs no further elucidation on my part."
 * hm when you say i "play nice" does this mean i try to look kindly? I dont try this, iam not afraid of anything, i did no bias i wasnt more incivil than people were to me. Iam not playing nice now. I have still no problem with saying eyeseren is a liar who has fun with pushing this here. Blablaaa (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My only reason to look this was that i feeled some kind bad that i talked about the old dapi issue here. Well, he still not striked his wrong comments but thats maybe the price when you are not willing to damaged reputation of others unnecessaryBlablaaa (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Climie
i stopped reading when i saw that he brings all the old stuff. like blabla did this and blabla did that 6 months ago. I was blocked for, no one disputes this. Congratulations for diggin in the past... . And even in the past my concerns were correct... I only had a worse way to talk about them Blablaaa (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by ImperfectlyInformed
ImperfectlyInformed has raised the point that, in regards to the Operation Charnwood article, I have acted in bad faith and against the advice given from third party neutral editors when making the following edit. However I find this to be a somewhat simplistic view of what has taken place over the last few days.

The above diff does show me removing Beevor as a source for the outcome of a tactical allied victory per the NPOV third party discussion were it was noted that this was a breach of the WP:SYN guideline; i have accepted this position and have admitted my mistake. However the simple explanation to my above action, as of why I did not change the entire outcome per the advice given by ImperfectlyInformed and FormerIP is because I did not see the NPOV third party intervention as coming to a conclusion per the following: Thus, to summarise, I do not believe I have acted in the opposite direction of recommendations or in bad faith as there are plenty of sources that “upgrade” Charnwood from a simple partial success and at the time of editing other neutral editors had already involved themselves.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Between my removal of the Beevor source, two more neutral editors involved themselves in the conversation: Chaosdruid made several posts on the matter and announced an opposite viewpoint and GraemeLeggett also presented evidence, although on the Charnwood talkpage, that did not agree with the advice that the outcome should be replaced with “partial success”.
 * 2) Per the following diff I raised an objection in regards to ImperfectlyInformed’s final reply, which on that talkpage at least, has went unanswered.
 * 3) Finally, ImperfectlyInformed’s first main reply stated the following “So I think the best resolution here is to replace "tactical success" with "partial success" pending sources that say otherwise” (my emphasis added). I find this to be a key piece in the jigsaw of how to adequately summarise the outcome of the operation in question. Per my reply  i presented two sources that give an outcome different to Beevor’s opinion and linked to the MILHIST talkpage were other sources had also been presented (i also quoted one in this reply) that also give a different position to Beevor.
 * Frist you call rangersteve a neutral editor in this case? he not even said something to the case. You were ask multiple times by me to bring one of the "many sources" which "upgrade charnwood" you failed to bring one. We were adviced to use "partial success", you choose to let tactical vicotry with D'est who also was found inapt. Please look charnwood talk.Blablaaa (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the discussion it was made clear by yourself that D'este did not say it was a tactical success anywhere. He had a long description which you interpreted as overall quite favorable, but it's ultimately synthesis - you are doing original research. If you had replaced the D'Este source with the one that called it an "operational victory", and then called it an operational victory it would not have been original research, although we would have to question why you did not take into account Beevor or the source which called it a "hollow victory". The two editors you mentioned, particularly Chaosdruid, appeared to be acting similar and working on original research. Good rule of thumb: if it takes you more than three sentences to support your interpretation of the source, there's a good chance you're engaging in synthesis. I'm not assuming bad faith, as I thought it might have been an accident. But I think clearly you and I have a different understanding of WP:SYNTH and I think your interpretation is clearly wrong. Unlike the editors here, I do not have the time to spend hours upon hours debating things ad-nauseum. I seek compromise and use sources which directly support what I cite them as saying. I'm going to try not to keep this discussion up. II  | (t - c) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For Blablaaa's benefit; I think Enigma is referring to the two editors he names. I am not one of them. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi II, considering my initial reply to you regarding D'Este was a sentance long and the second reply was only two, does that mean theres a good chance am not engaging in synthesis? :p
 * I do not see how it is a breech of the OR, or SYTH guidelines to summerise a viewpoint that states the tactical position was improved and that the German defenders suffered heavy losses. On top of which the entire issue is much greater than either Beevor or D'Este: other sources were mentioned but have been pushed to the wayside as have the other neutral editors.
 * I appreicate that you do not have the time to debate everything to the ends of the earth and am glad that you believed that i have no acted in bad faith.
 * RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that you finally avoid adding words to comments of historians? D'est did not claim the "tactical" position was improved. You added this word to imply correlation to your desired outcome "tactical victory". And i will join the OR party for one post. D'est also says it was "too little and too late" what can be easly interpreted as, they improved their position but not enough. I would also claim that is what he wants to say. You also clearly miss the point the outcome is not the problem, the problem are two sources which were used to cite something which they actually not really say. If finally charnwood becomes a victory is totally irrelevant. The 2 sources arent good for claiming tactical victory, if you have other sources which maybe say this is complete meaninglessBlablaaa (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am working on original research ? Please explain. I am researching a topic trying to find sources - that is not original research. I have not synthesised anything from the sources that exist. The quotes I have given all come from secondary sources. One source that Blaa and I thought may be primary I raised at the noticeboard to ask for clarification- even so that source is published material of a report after the war from Eisenhower in his role of SCAEF and he was not involved in the battles we were discussing. I quote from the OR page - "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia" Chaosdruid (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by ImperfectlyInformed
In response to your statement, can I first thank you for your constructive comments. It's useful to get more views on this from outside the group of editors that have been engaged with Blablaaa for many months, and yours are very welcome.

As I understand your concerns regarding my conduct, you believe I've wikilawyered and assumed bad faith in making a hasty accusation that Blablaaa was forum shopping, with the possible intent of stifling discussion? The following is based on this understanding, so please forgive any mistakes I may make if that understanding is faulty.


 * Was I hasty? In all honesty, probably yes I was. I have to confess that my patience with Blablaaa's battleground mentality has worn a little thin since last October, and with some foreknowledge of the level of disruption that was likely to occur on WT:MILHIST following a post from him, my heart sank when I saw it. Subsequent events have shown my apprehension was well-founded. Additionally, I was concerned by Blablaaa's misrepresentation incomplete presentation of the situation and didn't want Parsecboy to be placed in a difficult position by misuse of his good-faith (and correct, given the misleading scenario presented by Blablaaa) response. Note that uninvolved editors also found that Blablaaa misrepresented the situation did not present the full picture and commented to that effect on the Charnwood talk page (diffs in "Illustrative example" on the RfC page).


 * Did I assume bad faith? Yes I did, and I offer no apology for it. When a problematic editor has been given answers to a question by multiple experienced editors in good standing and, not getting the answer they wanted, takes their question elsewhere and then misrepresents it does not present the full picture, I believe I'm justified in concluding that they are more interested in winning than in abiding by consensus or adhering to community standards. Good faith should be assumed unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary; AGF is not a suicide pact.


 * Was my accusation of forum shopping justified? I believe so: it's defined as "repeatedly raising the same issue at different discussion forums ... until you get a result you like." Blablaaa had already posted to, or joined in discussion on, my talk page, NickD's talk page and his own talk page in addition to the Charnwood talk page. To me this looked like 'ask the other parent'. Unfortunately his continued forum shopping has now been rewarded, at least in a small way, at the NPOV notice board, although I believe some of the comments there demonstrate a misunderstanding of what a tactical success is as opposed to other levels of success, what WP:SYNTH is, and how it applies to WP:LEAD.

To wrap up, perhaps I can address the notion that there's a conspiracy against Blablaaa with three observations from other editors far wiser than I. The first is from Antandrus: "There IS a cabal. It's a core group of editors united by the belief that the encyclopedia must protect itself against jerks, and against people who write junk." The second is from Extreme Unction: "If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy." Finally, from khaosworks: "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you."

I hope this fully addresses your concerns. If you continue to feel I've acted inappropriately (particularly as an admin) in any way, I'll be pleased to answer further questions either here, on a talk page of your choice, or more formally at a suitable venue. All the best, EyeSerene talk 11:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * i raised my concerns at the talkpage of charnwood when i saw enigma is not willing to dicuss i then moved to MILHIST to present the case, thats no forumshoping. Please show balls and admit this. You are also lying when you claim that i presented the case wrong. Bring diffs to proof that i mispresented the case or strike your lieBlablaaa (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I reread my text at MILHIST, sorry but you simply lie there is no other word for this. You intervented there to make sure no neutral decisions evolves. its hilarious. My point there is the very exact description of what d'est said but without naming details.Blablaaa (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you feel "misrepresented" is a bit strong, in the interests of civility I've struck it and replaced it with "did not present the full picture" (or near equivalents). That's as far as I'm prepared to compromise though. EyeSerene talk 12:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * what you call " not presenting full picture " do i call presenting excatly the neccessary facts to judge neutral. MY intention was clear, i give no names or link. Why did i do that ? to avoid that the answering editor gets commited to any side. You knew that, thyats why you immediatly interfered and explaind who was involved. Blablaaa (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I appreciate the calm tone and the attempt to address my concerns. Unfortunately your response doesn't really address my concerns. Your summary was misleading and stayed above a concrete representation of the facts (as compared to mine), basically forcing people to rely on your assertion of misconduct rather than demonstrating misconduct. When one looks at the actual issue, one finds a more complex and more flattering picture of Blablaa's argument, even if his conduct is still not great. I do think that Blablaa's talkpage etiquette (the torrent of words) can be disruptive, and I mentioned that to him on his talkpage prior to even finding this RfC. But that doesn't excuse essentially biting the newbie, ignoring his concerns, and calling his attempts to seek uninvolved opinions forumshopping. Forum-shopping is more aimed at appealing to multiple admins; the section itself notes that "it is acceptable to give notification at one relevant forum about a discussion going on at another, and it may also be acceptable to raise an issue at a wider forum if consensus could not be reached at a more specialized one", and this is a fundamental tool in enforcing Wikipedia policy which should not be suppressed lightly. Raising the issue at certain people's talk page is hardly forumshopping, and in this case Blablaa's first attempt at another forum was called forumshopping. As far as the actual issue of your illustrative example, I think the synthesis occurring here is clear and I wouldn't mind if you went into more detail into how you could interpret it differently. What's ironic and solidies my view of lack of policy compliance is that while Blablaa attempted to use a primary source in a purely descriptive manner in accordance with WP:PSTS and was blocked by a non-compliant interpretation of WP:PSTS (blanket exclusion of primary? no way), but Enigma's clear synthesis of D'Este's long discussion of Operation Charnwood into "tactical success", ignoring several other sources to the contrary, is permitted? It doesn't make sense. I don't have time to argue this forever and since it seems we might just be at a fundamental impasse, I'm inclined to drop it. But if you could flesh out how you think this type of behavior makes sense I would appreciate it.  II  | (t - c) 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ImperfectlyInformed got the entire picture correct in regards to EyeSerene. EyeSerene wikilawyered and assumed bad faith to stifle open discussion (nothing new from him)  because Enigma (who's a friend of his and Nick's)  was misrepresnting sources. His  misrepresentation of the situation, the facts, and of Blablaaa is unacceptable and shows how biased he is, especially for an admin. It's unacceptable. Blablaaa presented the case honestly which EyeSerene did not and EyeSerene continues to be dishonest. EyeSerene wanted to shut the door on all neutral feedback period. I'm relieved that somebody else was able to see this.  Caden   cool  19:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks ImperfectlyInformed for your informative reply. I understand better now why you were concerned about my use of the term "forum shopping", and appreciate why you feel it was inappropriate. I clearly haven't read the definition carefully enough; I didn't realise that talk pages are excluded. I'll be more careful about that in future. However, I stand by the impression I had at the time that Blablaaa was simply 'asking the other parent' (if I can put it that way), and I don't agree that an editor who's been here since last autumn, engaged in very many discussions of this type, and has over 2000 edits under his account (and many more as an anon) qualifies as a newbie. The reason I believe he didn't give enough information to permit an informed response is that he misunderstood the sentence in the first place, and nowhere mentioned that he's talking about a compound phrase in the article lead. Instead of quoting it verbatim and giving some context, it seemed to me that he was angling for a particular answer based on his presentation of the issue that would then let him dispute the term "tactical success" for whatever reason (which sadly is pretty much what has transpired).
 * There are two reasons I believe WP:SYNTH is being misapplied in this case:
 * Firstly it seems that only the first part of SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", is being used. However, the full section repeatedly emphasises (including in the section title) that part of the package is the novel collation of sourced information to advance a position. Very few, if any, sources that I've seen - and I think we've had most of them now in various places - disagree that Charnwood was an Allied battlefield success, whatever else they say about it. They might not use the exact phrase "tactical success", but as a commonly understood (if subject specific) military term it would be obtuse to suggest that's not what they're talking about. Using "tactical success" advances no position, it merely summarises existing positions.
 * Secondly the phrase is used in the lead, not the article body. As a potted synopsis of the article content, using it in the lead to briefly summarise the Allied performance as portrayed in the preponderance of reliable sources is, in my experience of working on multiple featured articles, not unreasonable and in fact compliant with WP:LEAD and the guidance at When to cite. Maybe I should also mention that it's probably not entirely fair for Enigma to be put through the mill for the phrase - it could equally well be a result of my copyediting. I haven't searched through the diffs but am happy to if required.
 * I hope that clarifies my position, and apologies for the long reply. EyeSerene talk 20:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * iam no newbie at all Blablaaa (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * here the explanation for the charnwood tank loss issue [] Blablaaa (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: just re-read my reply and my phrase "in my experience of working on multiple featured articles" comes across as shockingly pompous :P What I was trying to say was that in my experience, using a standard term to summarise a broad sweep of sourced text - especially in the lead - isn't at variance with either WP policy or FA writing. I hope that's a better way of putting it. EyeSerene talk 06:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On theoriginal research point, I think original research is a more appropriate word here than SYNTH. It is troubling that you would argue that changing from a conclusion of the sources such as "partial success" or "hollow victory" - or even "operational victory" - to "tactical success", which no sources use, does not advance some particular position on how the battle is viewed by historians. I'm not sure which section makes it clear that "advancing a position" is a key requirement for original research, but you cut off half the second clause. The summary or OR is this: "articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources", so you cut off the last bit. Sources and statements always advance a position. Do you really want to hold to your "to advance a position" argument and deny that every time a source is summarized in a way which is not precisely supported by the source it is advancing a position? As to whether our synthesis and verifiability requirements should be loosened because it is in the lead, certainly not. Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead must be based on sources and supported, and this just isn't the case right now. The outcome of the battle is a hugely important component, and the sources make it seem rather complex - and in this case the complexity just isn't being reflected. I am concerned enough about this interpretation that I may be opening up a discussion at the policy page WP:OR about it, but if we can come to an agreement than perhaps we can avoid that. II  | (t - c) 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks once again for taking so much time over this. Reviewing what you've posted here and at ANI, I think I might have misled your view by my focus on the term "tactical success". I should probably have quoted the full text of the article, because I think we might have been talking at cross purposes here.
 * The last paragraph of the lead in its entirety reads "With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, despite I Corp's losses Operation Charnwood was a tactical success. Operationally, it achieved mixed results; although it forced the Germans to pull back all formations north of the Orne River, it did not stop the flow of formations to the American front. The Germans were able to establish a strong second defensive line along two ridges to the south of the city but the Allies maintained the initiative and launched the simultaneous Anglo-Canadian operations Goodwood and Atlantic a week later, during which the rest of Caen was secured."
 * I strongly suspect that in my earlier posts I may have given you the false impression that I see the term "tactical success" as adequately characterising the entire operation? I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth; describing Charnwood as a tactical success would be incomplete and at variance with the sources. In military terms, "tactical" refers solely to what happens on the battlefield (the methods employed to fight the battle, the ground taken or lost etc). It doesn't encompass wider (or "strategic") implications. Thus when sources like Beevor and Hastings call the battle a "partial success" or an "empty victory", the successful/victorious part they are referring to, as evidenced by their full text, is the actual fighting (Charnwood's tactical dimension). The unsuccessful/empty part is due to the wider implications - the failure to prevent German forces establishing new defences or reinforcing the US sector etc (Charnwood's strategic or possibly operational dimension†).
 * Thus the first sentence of the paragraph summarises the fighting part of the operation, that sources agree went fairly well: the taking of much of Caen (Beevor), the improvement of position (D'Este), the losses to the Germans (Copp, D'Este and Buckley), and the successful tactical plan for the assault (Copp). The next two sentences summarise its many failures. This is why, looking at the paragraph in its entirety, I don't believe any SYNTH/OR is taking place. Using the word "tactical" to refer to the fighting only is no more OR than using the word "medical" to refer to doctors and hospitals - it's simply what the word means. Perhaps it's worth mentioning that although I think it makes a nice succinct phrase, I'm not particularly wedded to "tactical success"; any equivalent phrase would do. Perhaps there is even a case to be made per Make technical articles understandable that "tactical" is too subject-specific to be used in the lead and something more readily understood would be better.
 * Apologies once again for the length of this post, but I really hope we're approaching some sort of understanding :) EyeSerene talk 11:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * † This is complicated by the fact that in reading the histories one needs to bear in mind that some nations - the British among them - didn't recognise the operational level as distinct from the tactical/strategic levels until relatively recently. Naturally enough some historians wrote in those terms too and lumped what is now referred to as 'operational' in with either 'tactical' or 'strategic' depending on who was doing the writing.
 * Beevor : "partial sucess" > infobox "tactical allied victory" using beevor as source.... Blablaaa (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the infobox should be changed. My suggestion would be something like "Allied tactical success/strategic failure", but anything along those lines would suffice. EyeSerene talk 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

which historian would you take to cite this tactical success?Blablaaa (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an issue we need to re-take up on the article talkpage, after we have laid down everything we have rather than have a circula argument over two sources. I will contact the druid to find out where he is up to with his own sources and i will post what i have over the next couple of days once i have re-checked everything again.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) I agree. Blablaaa, I'd take the same source as I would take to support "strategic failure": all of them. Much like the lead, the source for the infobox is the rest of the article and we shouldn't be presenting a restricted or incomplete view. I think we have basically two choices when it comes to writing the infobox result. We either try to encapsulate every view, which isn't easy (my suggestion isn't really reflecting the sources that believe Charwood wasn't a complete strategic defeat, for example), or we write "See analysis" with a link to the appropriate section. Either of those is fine by me. The one thing I think we shouldn't ever do is pick a single source and rely on that. That would mean we, as editors, are selecting which of the many views we think is the correct or most valid one, and that is utterly against WP:NPOV (also, see WP:CHERRY). It would also open the infobox up to constant criticism and dispute, because whichever source is picked there would be another that contradicts it. The only exception, I guess, would be if all sources were in exact agreement, and I've yet to see that happen. To be honest, as a website I don't think we've yet managed to find a way of dealing with infoboxes properly. As always it comes down to discussion and consensus-building. It certainly shouldn't be about spinning the article, or winning, or proving a point, but about doing whatever we can to provide the best, most complete, picture possible to our readers based on as much reliably sourced information as we can get. That's the sole purpose Wikipedia exists and every Wikipedia policy is valid only so long as it supports that goal... and if sometimes policy gets in the way, as will happen occasionally because not every policy can be written to cover all circumstances, we are told to obey Wikipedia's single most important policy: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it (WP:IAR). EyeSerene talk 16:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the problem is that we have very long discussion because of this and this was brought here to make a point against me but eventually we see that is was your failure and not mine. The question is why you start such long discussion to avoid making a correct edit. And even more important why do you use this against me while it was simply your fault ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get into this in detail here as it's been covered elsewhere ad nauseam and the diffs show that this wasn't the point you first raised. I believe the infobox did come up later, but by that stage I'd abandoned trying to follow the various discussions and keep track of the moving goalposts. The one point I will make is that I see the infobox now uses "partial success" sourced to Beevor. If I absolutely had to choose one single source for the infobox—setting aside all the reasons I've given above why I think this is problematic and not fully in line with policy—I guess Beevor's "partial success" is the best of the bunch and I understand why other editors have advised using it. My main objection (other than WP:CHERRY etc) is that as a summary of a huge, complex military operation it's not very informative. I think especially on an article that's supposed to showcase our very best content, we can do a better service for our readers. EyeSerene talk 09:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The question if charnwood was a victory or not is pretty irrelevant. A historian who said "partial success" was used for citing "tactical victory" that is against wiki policies. Not me or imperfect choose to use beevor, enigma used beevor. And he did in an incorrect way. I pointed at this issue and no one cared. At least one MILHIST coordinator supported enigma. Blablaaa (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "featured article" maybe you saw that an editor put inconclusive in the box for Perch ( FA status ) while all sources say british operational failure. Maybe you should note that the charnwood FA article includes many refuted comments of kurt meyer himself instead of using the research by other historian. You also should note that charnwood doesnt mentions reynolds concern about british clumsyness. Another featured article, Operation Epsom, forgets to mention that epsom was a heavy british failure at the operational level. All featured articles and only a short overview by me. But this concerns will be raised, in full lenght, elsewhere if this becomes necessary... Blablaaa (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So the "smoking gun" you have been talking of for sometime is an infobox that was overlooked when the article shreds the British apart (or either left vague due to some positive commentary coming from some historians - it was over a year ago when the edit was made long before the article was promoted), omits the fact that while Reynolds may not have been used other historians have been that call into question the British handling of Charnwood, and that you appear to have not read the Epsom final section (not to mention the Goodwood diff were you claim credit for information "being added back in").
 * Considering you have thrown quite a number of accusations around about me am quite surprised that your “evidence” relays on the fact you appear to not have read articles in full, that I have not used Reynolds enough for your liking (i.e. WP:Cherry? not to mention do you remember you once use to also slag off that historian before you found out he was "pro German") and that attempts on my talkpage at some form of co-operation of recent have in the light of the above comments has all been smoke and mirrors; you seriously do tax the limits of AGF – one day you talk of co-operation to improve articles and the next you return to using them as some sort of evidence to support your vendetta!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My post about cooperation was pretty clear. cooperation required a change of attitude. My post on your talk is quite a time ago you still ignored my questions which you dont like you still tried to act like my concerns were incorrect. Until this point i told nobody about my concern nor did i post diffs of you. I guess when finally we talk in full length about this issue the fact alone that 3 out of 4 featured article which were mainly made by you have a wrong outcome in the box, alone is pretty generic. No need to mention that all this "little mistakes" favored allied. You think this is all ? Its not, its only the most obvious. Regarding the pro-german historian, you mean Schneider? Hes also on my list you only bought his book to write a very long critic about wittmann. I glanced through your articles and saw that you used schneider only ONCE. You bought his book and used him only one time to critizise wittmanns action. Generally schneider emphazises german tiger battalions but you managed to use him only for critics. You even announced at the talk page that you are awaiting the book to write the critic. Again regarding cooperation, this here against me is still going on.... Blablaaa (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You dont half sprout aload! Who cares if the RFC is still going on, your posts on my talkpage start four days ago attempting further co-operation and then in your above post you change your tune completly; well ive learnt my lesson! Per my above reply, if you bothered to read the articles you will note that they are rather balanced and the ones you have mentioned spend most of the analysis sections in essence slagging off the British - how is that favouring the allied forces in any way?
 * Since i did not mention Schneider anywhere in the above comments or this entire RFC i dont know where you have managed to get that from and it was pretty clear who i was talking about above. I will address your "concerns" once more; 1) I didnt buy his book because he has not wrote a book on VB as far as am aware. 2) I bought a book by the late Villers-Bocage historian Henrie Marie, a book that has been used as much as possible in the article (not to mention i didnt buy it to write an article, i bought it to further my own knowledge of the battle) 3) I had already wrote the critical information before i had the book as the information and refs had been passed to me facsimile. 4) Once i had Marie's work in my hand i confirmed the information was correct and added in the stuff that had not been passed over to me. 5) The section of the book that Schneider wrote is called an analysis of the tactical handling of the battalion, which he does and you do not like. You do not have the work yet you contuine to dispute, further proving the point i raised in my RFC comments; in addition you appear to still be unable to accept that an expert in his field has been extremely critical of Wittmann's handling of the battle. I added in comments regarding the positive commentry historians have towards Wittmann and my fellow editors added in further ammounts; even the FAC Review noted that he article was balanced in this regards - am sorry but get over it, some historians do not like his handling of the situation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You put words in my mouth ^^ many words... . But yeah same like always dont address points which you dont like. Like i said i think this going nowhere a committe have to deal with this, if there is no other solution. Blablaaa (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just replied to your post on a near enough point by point bais stating facts; just want did i decide to ignore from your previous reply (your accusations of bais without evidence, and your apparent inability to read the articles?) and just which words am i placing in your mouth (since you brought schneider up and showed your inability to give the right facts on that case).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

no you putt words in my mouth instead of addressing the problemsBlablaaa (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * where did you use the pro-german schneider? please tell me where you used him. i only see his cirtics of wittman so tell me, where? And now you will dodge the question or you will tell that there was no occasion to use him. tell meBlablaaa (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont believe i have called him pro-German (and to note i was being sarcastic with the earlier mention of this term hence the air quotes) since its stupid. You can see schneider's comments in the section of the VB article you do not like (referenced as Marie, since it is his book); see point 5 of my previous reply that explains what schneider wrote.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok so you only used him to describe wittmanns tactical mishandling. Well, thats what i said Blablaaa (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk about ignoring what is being said to you; that is the entire section of Marie's book - the section written by Schneider. He re-itterates what took place then anyaslis it hence the title of the section now get off the high horse, drop the stick, and accept the fact.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, drop the stick is often said to me. For example when i critize the misinterpretation of a sources and so on .Blablaaa (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Response
Since when do the phrases "i thought you will not respond because your source faking of glantz. I intially planned to not to respond to kursk because i wanted not to damage you reputation but now the case looks different." provide room for misunderstanding? The implications of bad faith on Dapi89's part, and a threat to damage another editor's reputation is clear enough and needs no further elucidation on my part. That Blablaaa has attempted to "play nice" since I posted a warning is a point in his favour. However, reading '' i only see english/british editors which edited articles over years and this with near sanctity granted by other british editors/admins. Here my position gets simply misinterpreted and disorted. I dont claim a british editor is generally more bias than german i simply say that here are some editors which are bias and they have established kinda networt which is impossible to invade. Two are working to keep the normandy articles pro british and another is securing the allied warcrime article and watching that every supsicious looking claim is removed immediatly. Another 3 are guarding the battle of jutland to keep him "tactical inconclusive" despite being aware of the fact that one million books claim something different. Even a shepherd in mongolia knows this.'' show that Blablaaa will continue his accusations of pro-British bias and bad faith on the part of several other editors, postulating some non-existent conspiracy. These are easy accusations to make and take a lot of time and (obviously) wasted effort to refute. As far as I can see editors are making an enormous amount of effort to form some sort of compromise with Blablaaaa only to have their efforts being treated with contempt and a constant barrage of generally circular arguments "I Blablaaa am right in everything I do, everyone else is wrong". Minorhistorian (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Posted by me after this edit — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

History repeating itself ?
''The following post was left on my talk page. I believe it should be included here since it deals with what's been going on. It's from a German editor who faced the same issues that both Blablaaa and I are currently facing now and oddly enough features much of the same characters. ''  Caden  cool  21:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see another "disruptive" editor turned up, familiar, the accusations "single distruptive editor" against "dozen experienced reditors in good standing", "seemingly valuable edits" and so on, also familiar, should I say, stereotypics phrases and arguements, the names, Eyeserene, Enigma, Dapi, Minor, well they also seem to appear in concerto all the time do they not? :D
 * Appears you recognized as well its another of Eyeserene's witch-hunts, with the rather transperent intent of blocking the opposing POV and providing editing monopoly to his pro-Allied buddies like Enigma to these articles. Its not the first time Eyeserene employs these underhand tactics and canvassing, with his buddies mutually supporting each other's 'neutral' overview at RfCs and talk pages, coordinating on each others talk pages about how to harass editors, firm in the knowledge they have been granted a free ride by an abusive admin and provoking the other good faith editor on talk pages then running to report him for being 'distruptive'.
 * We have seen this kind of administrational abuse earlier too, but it it did there is nothing new with this, there has been a similar case with a Eastern European admin and his circle of similarly minded followers ignoring the rules (see Eastern European Mailing list arbitration case), but that one ended up rather bad both for the admin, who was stripped of his admin rights, and the rest of the tag team. Looking at that case the parallel and the precedence is strong, and it seems timely that the Arbitration Committee should deal with the possible case of yet another wiki lawyering admin turning wiki concepts and goals upside down and trying to drive away genuinely productive and good faith editors from certain MILHIST articles, until there's only his preferred editors remain and single, seldom neutral POV is ensured. Of course I cannot claim myself neutral either, having been repeatedly and then indef blocked by Eyeserene for a single revert under curious circumstances (the [details you can find here] and perhaps, enlightening), though the arguments were exactly the same and just as vague as the ones he now employs attempting to silence editor Blabaaaaa. Cheers, Kurfürst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.216.230 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. I have no doubt in my mind that you were a victim of dirty wiki politics. And German too? Now why am I not surprised? Seems there's a pattern here? Hmm interesting!  Caden  cool  19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a fast read of the block and related issues ( really short overview ). First of all i cant back kurfürst generally because i simply dont know the background, in opposite to other editors who endorse comments which they not even read ( dianne ), i cant choose sides without knowing the case. But some points are same like here, people bring accusations which are finally refuted and then they ignore these facts. Eyeserens style is always the same : over eager pushing for sanctions with massive of claims and accusations and when this claims eventually are wrong he simply never talks about this again. I think i wrote somewhere that this is exactly the problem, people can bring claims and accusations and a bit eloquence and finally no one cares if they had lied. Regarding kurfürst i guess his block can be unjustified, i guess he made a failure with not seeking neutral people to investigate like me after nicks, *i have no diff but you are blocked*-move, i think maybe his case should be reconsidered. Blablaaa (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kurfürst's block is unjustified and is typical of EyeSerene's unacceptable use of admin tools much like Nick-D. And yes many of Kurfürst's points are the same as here. As for Diannaa? She's a very good friend of Nick's. I'm not surprised at all with her endorsements. And let's not forget that she's another editor who's had past issues with you.  Caden  cool  21:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The block on Kurfurst was reviewed and endorsed at the Administrators' noticeboard. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Kurfurst was a nasty peice of work and a liar to boot. I'm going to bring it to the attention of admins, that depite his indef' block, he is still attempting to disrupt wikipedia. Dapi89 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, this does seem analagous to our current situation and GraemeLegget provides a misleading summary of that discussion. I have not reviewed his edits at all but administrator Philip Baird Shearer did not really support the Kurfust's block. So it seemed a bit similar to what we have here: by pure numbers, yes, there are a lot of people. But on pure substance as discussed in my comment and NPOV/N, Blablaaa's arguments are not really disruptive, are supported by two uninvolved editors at NPOV/N, and some of the claims against Blablaaa are frankly absurd, e.g. forumshopping. If I had not stepped in to mention the view on NPOV/N, this could have turned very critical based largely on rhetoric. II  | (t - c) 12:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The admins have now blocked the sockpuppet. II; you should more careful of what you say. You are now accusing another editor of dishonesty. Mr Shearer had a warped perception of things - only he favoured a non-block, though even he suggested a topic ban. So it is you who are making the misleading statements. It reminds me of Kurfurst. Dapi89 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that II is trying to say that I did not provide a clearer summary of the review. I was linking with the intention that others would read rather than that the link itself was a statement on the case. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he knew that Graeme. Dapi89 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should not oeverfocus on kurfürst because the kurfürst issue seems very complex. The only thing what i said was, that it seems to be kinda tactic to bring more accusations as possible in the hope no one have the time to check all.Blablaaa (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, Kurfurst loves any attention he can get, so let's not focus on him. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm i looked through his last block ( still iam not able to get an opinion about him ) and found that there was no specific diff to block him. when the unblock issue was raised all who were against him simply repeated old stuff for which he was already punished. there was no specific reason for a block, he was simple blocked . You minorhistorian for example brought up he wrongly accused somebody of being a sockpuppet, but i looked this investigation and it turned out that other editors already investigated this case and it was found that the users are from the same city and highlikly friends or meat puppets, which makes kurfürst request pretty reasonable. To be honest his assumption was correct. But you summarized this case with "accusing of being sockpuppet", and that kurfürst should apologize? huuu? Sounds intersting for me. So his last block seems to be without any sufficient reason. only reasons which were brought up where the stuff which happend before his last blocks. While eyeseren blocked kurfürst his pretty simple reasons for that, were that kurfürst had trouble with dapi and minorhistorian. Still not able to give my entire opinion if kurfürst is good or bad or whatever but his last blocks looks at least doubtful. Blablaaa (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite simple really, read the dates 19 - 22 Feb allegations found to be unsubstantiated yet KF continues with allegations 12 March and beyond which, amongst other activities, was simply his usual nasty way of getting back at other editors: continued allegations of this nature, particularly in edit comments, are against Assume good faith and were clearly designed to frustrate/anger the editor in question. KF should have dropped the matter and put a sock in it once the case was closed; he didn't:

Battle of Denmark Strait:

(cur | prev) 15:04, 12 March 2010 Kurfürst  (talk | contribs) (45,150 bytes) (Undid revision 349333037 by And heg (talk) restore disruptive revert by meatpuppet/sockpuppet. No specific concerns were given on talk page...) (undo)

as a result

(cur | prev) 17:57, 12 March 2010 MBK004  (talk | contribs) (45,221 bytes) (Undid revision 349430588 by Kurfürst (talk) per WP:BRD And heg is entitled to do so and your revert is a violation of WP:OWN, final warning issued) (undo)

In effect he hung himself because, in spite of all his previous blocks and warnings, he continued to behave in his usual deliberately provocative and confrontational way. We all get tired and snarly and do and say things we shouldn't when editing Wikipedia. Most of are are capable of withdrawing and apologising and getting on with things. KF never bothered. His block was endorsed by other Admins, who also looked into the case (unless Blablaa & co want to claim another "conspiracy" :-) ). Anyway, 'nuff said about Kurfurst, this is my last word on the subject: this page is not about him and if Blablaaa still ain't satisfied, too bad. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "and heg" seems to be a meatpuppet. If MBK004 wasnt aware of this the situations is totally different. meatpuppets are not allowed to edit wikipedia. kurfürst concerns were correct ( i guess the admin said so ) . Again, you summarized this with "accusation of beeing sock puppet" you were pretty hard wrong and brought wrong unjustified claims to the unblockrequest. But you are correct not the place for this hereBlablaaa (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dapi89 why do you make assertions like this: "Mr Shearer had a warped perception of things - only he favoured a non-block, though even he suggested a topic ban." instead of expressing an opinion. As I have asked you to consider what you write before and clearly others think you have also been uncivil to them. My question to you is in the words of Oliver Cromwell "think it possible you may be mistaken?" as comments such as these are just the sort of thing in my opinion that get many editors to retaliate and say things that you my well consider uncivil and confrontational. -- PBS (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is good advice Dapi :) PBS acted completely neutrally and correctly re the Kurfurst episode, and there's nothing to suggest otherwise. The entire point of an ANI unblock review is to get a range of opinions on the matter, and opinions contrary to consensus (even if only partially) are often the most important in helping to counter groupthink. As I said at the time, it's a real test dealing with a disruptive editor, especially when repeated sanctions seem to have no lasting effect, but you can't let frustration get to you. EyeSerene talk 09:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

When I get time
I'm going to come in here and join the discussion. However, I'll first note that half my argument against BlaBlaa will be based on the fact that his disruptive editing causes users with limited time to give up because he clearly has so much free time and energy for argument and unanimous editing. My second part of the argument will point out merely that for just taking the time to point this out, I've been insulted and threatened.--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * to be honest i think you should be blocked you faked sources you delete sources, you have a problem with soviet losses you called me nazi you said i fake source because you hate what the sources say. i told you now 10 times that the source say exactly this.Blablaaa (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * if you are not able to support your claimes some admins should investigate your editing. Blablaaa (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Senor Freebie should of been blocked for calling you a Nazi. I made myself quite clear on his talk page regarding this. I'd like to know why he's so interested in you.  Caden  cool  22:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * dunnoBlablaaa (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the message I left him.  Caden  cool  22:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making my case for me. Counter to what you say, at no point did I call BlaBlaaa a nazi. I did however say he was taking a demonstratably pro Nazi POV in his edits. I do not appreciate the threats and personal attacks. Additionally, to anyone else reading this discussion, BlaBlaaa states that I faked sources and deleted sources. I never did either of these things. The ONLY interaction I have had with Blablaaa on a wikipedia article was on the Battle of Prokhorovka article. Here, I found that the person who had introduced a source with one figure had had his source hijacked by Blablaaa who now claims "he has the book" and that it shows a different figure. Meanwhile he has not even once acknowledged the fact that on the same discussion page he is making this claim another user is pointing to another figure. Not only this, but the user who introduced the source stated that in his opinion it was the best coverage, but the majority of editors of that article disagreed because it wasn't the middle ground. I've covered this repeatedly in numerous places because BlaBlaa is forum shopping for support and has that many warnings against him for similar behaviour. The issue here isn't the unanimous editing anymore. It is the constant and direct attacks against me and the disruptive editing by both of the above users when anyone makes a single edit on a WW2 article they're interested in. This has disgusted and appalled me and the fact that previous administrator action has been taken against both of these users only to be repealed on the incorrect assumption of sincere apologies shows people are not being bold enough, especially when there is a long list of users here stating they are frustrated with these users attitudes.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

here you fake sources [] you put a number which you more like infront of glantzBlablaaa (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC) here again [] Blablaaa (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC) here [] you delete sources and fake another because you dont like it, you own none of the books all you have is your opinion Blablaaa (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC) and again here [] you fake sources which you never sawBlablaaa (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job Blablaaa. The evidence speaks volumes.  Caden  cool  23:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * the best is how he adds different numbers in front of glantz with every edit^^Blablaaa (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

''NOTE: I started writing what is written below before User:Blablaaa made his above post. So I'll start with my disjointed reply. The first 3 edits he links to, I merely checked what was in the edit history and changed it to that because the article described a battle heavily different to what was in the battle box and what most users were stating on the discussion page. It wasn't until the final diff he shows that I actually took the time to balance it all out. Now, I am going to patiently wait for the user to be dealt with before going back and correcting the article.'' ''NOTE #2: Since I started writing this there has been ~7 comments between BlaBlaaa and Caden. So each time I hit save I'm forced to copy my text from one box to another. Here goes for another attempt at actually making a comment.''

Just for good measure here is a rough breakdown of the figures that BlaBlaaa is dominating with his unanimous editing:
 * Samsanov - an official Soviet Historian claims ~400 German tanks lost
 * Glantz - a highly regarded Western historian claims ~60-70 German tanks destroyed
 * Friesner - a German military officer claims 17 German tanks destroyed

Meanwhile, after user:BlaBlaa's insistent and unanimous edits the article stands as such:
 * Citing Friesner, 3-9 tanks destroyed
 * Citing Glantz as "other sources" @ 60-70 German tanks destroyed or damaged (note Glantz says destroyed)
 * Removed Samsanov altogether

To me, there is a clear case to cite Glantz verbatim and to ignore Samsanov and Friesner or merely note them as disputed sources since both of them rely entirely upon the assumption that their respective militaries were honest. I tried to make a case for this and as has been demonstrated above, I am attacked, nearly constantly without justification for merely holding NPOV. Thanks to this attitude I've recieved I have decided not to let this rest and move on to other articles. I consider this deliberately combative and in fact User:BlaBlaaa and User:Caden's intention. They want users to give up on editing the articles they edit so they are left with sole control of Wikipedia's history of German losses. Why? I can only assume to downplay the German defeats, since even in their own admission WW2 becomes less interesting after the German's start losing.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure how often i told you that frieser says 17 tanks destroyed between 12th and end of zitadelle. Frieser says 3, and glantz covers a bigger timeframe than frieser. No serious historian is claiming 300 ^^. Kosave gives 7 destroyed tanks ^^. You faked sources... Blablaaa (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * and the article does not say 3-9 by frieser the 9 are from other sources ^^ and AGAIN glantz covers amuch bigger timeframe and not only 12th. Blablaaa (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * and what you cite is the so called prokhorovka myth, type it into googleBlablaaa (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that my edit here is a response to BlaBlaaa's 3rd last edit, the one that it is indented twice and I'm having to clarify this because he has commented twice since then in the time it took me to write one edit.
 * "Not sure how often i told you that frieser says 17 tanks destroyed between 12th and end of zitadelle."; Not once. You simply unanimously edited the article to suit your purposes and are still failing to acknowledge that the user who originally introduced Friesner says 17 is the number for this battle. Also, last time I was at the article, Kosave gave 9 according to your edits. It seems that yet again you've pushed numbers down without discussion hey? I never said a serious historian is claiming 300. I also never faked sources. I just changed the figures to represent what a more wider array of editors were setting them to. If you have a problem with everyone other user on wikipedia then perhaps you should first try to rationally discuss your changes to an article before taking full ownership and harassing other users.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Not once" : here btw is the edit were i told you that with the 17 [] you replied directly below ... Blablaaa (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

my final reply to you. frieser say 3 !!! and he also says 17 from 12 july till end of zitadelle. If you dont want to notice this then we are done. And you changed figures of book to figures which are wrong while you never saw this books, i guess this must be discussed elsewhere. Wiki doenst work this way. What do you talk about discussing? the numbers were in the box and you disputed them with nothing else than "this is impossible red army ROCKS" ( overexgaration ), then i decided to add more figures so you are maybe happy then when you see that there are multiple sources supporting this. Blablaaa (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With only a brief amount of research outside wikipedia (instead of relying on other editors) I found a source quoting the actual German units involved and their records:

"On July 13, the day after the Battle of Prochorovka, Fourth Panzer Army reports declared that the II SS Panzer Corps had 163 operational tanks, a net loss of only 48 tanks. Actual losses were somewhat heavier, the discrepancy due to the gain of repaired tanks returned to action. Closer study of the losses of each type of tank reveals that the corps lost about 70 tanks on July 12." Note, you say Frieser says 17 losses after July 12th until the end of Citadelle, yet this operation was ended by Hitler on the 13th. The above statement seems to be confirming what Glantz's research has found. Yet as it states, this is quoting the SS units involved so we have to assume they are being honest, when there was pressure on them to deflate losses. Irrespective ... thats the best source. Given the Germans withdrew the next day, its fairly likely that most of the 70 tanks were complete write off's, as they would've listed anything that was patched up in their hurried retreat as operational and destroyed the rest so as not to let the Soviets capture them.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * problem is that my research is a bit better then yours because the numbers of the 13th include the fighting of the 13th!!! thats why i told you glantz covers a bigger timeframe. He includes engagements of the 13th july. The articles covers the battle of the 12. Please get your facts right this will make conversations much shorter. Nevertheless Glantz is already in the infobox same like frieser and others. If you had neutral research you would have found that the both participating german divisions reported more tanks available after the battle then before. You faked sources and failed to proove that i did... Blablaaa (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * and btw zitadelle was canceled 17th july in the south.... Blablaaa (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So...
Now admittedly, I've never really participated in an RfC before, and I'm not a major player. But looking over other User RfCs, and other RfCs in general, this seems to be about everything that happens. What actually happens now? Do people just keep posting comments ad nauseum or does a judgement get made at some point in the future? Because I imagine everyone has more productive things they could be doing. Skinny87 (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Broadly, it stays open until either there have been no new comments for a while or it is superceded by another process. Typically, this process would be the acceptance of an arbitration request and a case opening.  Roger Davies  talk 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So this is essentially pointless, then, apart from being in some kind of 'virtual checklist' of things to do for a disruptive editor before going on to a stage where something can be done? Superb! Skinny87 (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not pointless, no. There's always the hope, at every stage during the WP:DR process, that parties will be able reach an agreement that makes further escalation unnecessary. At worst the RfC has at least indicated a scale and depth of feeling about this situation that might not otherwise have come out, and by gathering submissions in one place it can form much of the evidence for any subsequent proceedings. I appreciate your desire to draw a line under things and move on - I feel the same way myself and don't doubt that others do too - but I think if we don't do this right (by following the procedures established by community consensus), we might as well not be doing it at all ;) EyeSerene talk 12:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm dropping off this note after reading this RfC and its talk page following the request for arbitration that was made on this matter. It actually says on the RFC page at Requests for comment: A request for comment on a user, however, needs to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor. It might be best if this RfC is indeed closed by an uninvolved editor now that a request for arbtration has been made, though ideally that would have been done before the request for arbitration was made. I will ask at the request for arbitration to see if an uninvolved editor watching that page is willing to close this RfC, though any uninvolved editor reading this and willing to close it should do so. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What I wrote above may be wrong. Please see here for more thoughts. Carcharoth (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where problems are persisting, the general recommendation is to escalate even if it is during the RfC...so if ArbCom accepted a case or if an admin imposed a sanction in the meantime, or if the community imposed a sanction in the meantime, this would be closed. (The other way RfC/Us are closed is when they are deemed to have served their purpose and a motion to close is supported, as noted in those guidelines). Otherwise, such as if closing would be premature, RfCs are generally left open for at least 30 days (or until it becomes stale which can be a bit longer); this, I suppose, is treated as an opportunity for the editors to be receptive to the feedback that is received - the amount of time this can take will vary from individual to individual. If an editor wants to escalate during the RfC, they would go to the community and explain why they are doing so prematurely - what evidence is there that the problems are persisting? Or if it's very serious about comments made during an RfC (like personal attacks), again the community would be called to enforce the RfC/U rule that no personal attacks are permitted during RfC/Us. In either instance, the community will try to come up with something (or so one would hope), but if it's too complex or not going to work, then I suppose the final resort is tried. Obviously this is not a hard and fast rule, and there will be exceptions, but it is a bit weird if different sets of people were subject to different requirements. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Noting that this has been closed as the user retired. The indef block has also been recorded as it was made during his retirement (my understanding is that he stated he was retiring at 08:14 2 August, he was asked to trim his statement so did so in the hours after that prior to officially leaving, he was notified of his block at 17:52, and he then formally placed the retired tag on his talk at 19:00...this all occurred while the request for arbitration was being considered). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify a few points: the 08:14 2 August diff is here ("Reflecting my time here i guess this is not the correct place for me so i will cease editing anyways.") The 17:52 diff is here (the initial notification was the diff before that one). The placing of the retired tag on his talk page was done at 18:09 by the impersonator account User:Blablaaa0 (an earlier impersonator account, User:Blablaaa1, was blocked in July 2010, while User:Blablaaa2 was clearly Blablaaa creating an account to evade a block). However, once the confusion with the impersonator(s) was sorted out, Blablaaa did leave the retired tag in place, so in effect he is indeed retired and remains indefinitely blocked and would need to unretire and file a successful unblock appeal to resume editing. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)